Re: OT: Farsi

Anton Sherwood wrote:


>Thomas Leigh wrote:
>> ... it belongs to the Iranian branch (or sub-branch?) of Indo-European.
>
>I gather that linguists are not all agreed whether Indo-Iranian ought to
>be counted as one branch or two.
Eh?  How so?  I've never heard any argument about the unity of Indo-Iranian;
seems to me it's one of the few areas where IEists do agree.... though I
only know what I read on Cybalist (a very good yahoogroup devoted to IE
matters).

I-I  >>>> 1. Indic; 2. Iranian.  Both branches, of course, have many
languages, living and dead.   Someone on Cybalist recently stated that there
are/may be I-I languages (in Afghanistan) that don't fit into either group,
so perhaps there could be a subcategory 3..... and maybe even  a 4.....  but
that wouldn't affect the proto-node.